Being Stalked by Intelligent Design

I ignored the threat for a long time. I groaned at the letters to the
editor in our local paper that dismissed evolution as "just a
theory" and proclaimed the superiority of "Intelligent
Design" (ID) to explain the world around us. When a particular
emeritus professor pestered me with e-mails asking how I explained
this or that aspect of the fossil record (How could a flying bird
evolve from a non-flying species? Did I think feathered dinosaurs
were real?), I answered him time and again—until I realized
that he was reading neither my answers nor the references I
suggested. When this same man stood up, yet again, after a lecture
to read a "question" that was actually a prepared
statement about ID, I rolled my eyes.

But on October 18, 2004, the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania,
changed its official curriculum, mandating that: "Students will
be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other
theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent
design. Note: Origins of life will not be taught." The new
policy required teachers to read to their biology classes a
four-paragraph disclaimer questioning the validity of evolution and
suggesting that students consult ID literature. Seven biology
teachers in Dover refused to comply and risked their jobs by writing
a powerful letter to the superintendent of schools, Richard
Nilsen. The letter read, in part: "'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' IS NOT
SCIENCE. 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN' IS NOT BIOLOGY. 'INTELLIGENT DESIGN'
IS NOT AN ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC THEORY." (Emphasis in original.)

Dover is a small town not far from my home. I became
alarmed—ID was in my neighborhood, and it was harming the
teaching of science by confusing it with religion. I and many other
colleagues signed a petition in support of the embattled teachers.
Since the actions of the school board last fall, 11 parents,
represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans
United for Separation of Church and State, have filed a lawsuit to
stop the reading of the disclaimer and the teaching of ID in science classes.

Of Questionable Intelligence

The main premise of ID is that the living organisms on Earth are so
complex and so intricately constructed that they cannot
plausibly have arisen through the unguided action of
natural selection, so there must be an "intelligent
designer." (This entity is usually identified as God, but in a
deposition taken January 3, 2005, Dover Superintendent Nilsen
suggested that the "master intellect" described in an ID
textbook might also be an alien.)

In rhetoric, the line of reasoning used by ID advocates is known as
an argument by incredulity. Because what is entirely
plausible to one person is ludicrously unlikely to another,
arguments by incredulity are inherently weak. ID is not a scientific
theory amenable to testing, but an opinion, a philosophical
preference, a belief. That fact made it easy for me to dismiss the
ID movement as scientifically unimportant.

I might have settled back into complacency had I not learned that
students in the public high school in my town—a town dominated
by a major university—can "opt out" of learning
about evolution if their parents send a letter to the school.
Allowing students to "opt out" of learning the basic facts
and theories of biology is about as wise as allowing them to
"opt out" of algebra or English: It constitutes malfeasance.

Do not mistake my objection. If my neighbors and their children wish
to believe in Intelligent Design as a matter of faith that
is fine with me. What I object to most strenuously is the
presentation of a religious belief as a scientific theory in a
science class.

Nearly everyone educated in science agrees that there is neither
controversy nor debate over the fundamental premise of evolutionary
theory: Species evolve over time through the mechanism of natural
selection (differential survival and reproduction) acting on
variability produced by genetic diversity and mutation. Evolutionary
theory is the unifying theme of all of modern biology, witness
statements from many groups, including the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, the American Association of University
Professors, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical
Society, the American Institute of Biological Sciences, the American
Physical Society, the National Academy of Sciences, the National
Center for Science Education, and the National Science Teachers
Association. As the late, great geneticist and evolutionary theorist
Theodosius Dobzhansky, a devout Christian, explained in the title of
his famous paper, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the
light of evolution." Others agree that evolutionary theory is
compatible with a belief in God, such as the Bishop of Oxford, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the late
Pope John Paul II (despite one cardinal's recent reinterpretation of
his writings).

The threat posed by ID became more real to me when colleagues at
Ohio State University—professors Brian McEnnis (mathematics),
Jeffrey McKee (anthropology) and Steve Rissing (evolution, ecology
and organismal biology)—became involved in an extraordinary
situation. A Ph.D. candidate in science education, high school
teacher Bryan Leonard, wrote a dissertation on the following
research questions: "When students are taught the scientific
data both supporting and challenging macroevolution, do they
maintain or change their beliefs over time? What empirical,
cognitive and/or social factors influence students' beliefs?"

Leonard described his project and identified himself as a graduate
student at OSU during his testimony at the evolution
"hearing" put on by the Kansas Board of Education in May
2005. One of the Ohio State professors called the Graduate School to
learn more and discovered that Leonard's thesis defense was
scheduled for June 6, 2005. The trio wrote a letter to the dean of
the school on June 3 requesting that Leonard's dissertation defense
be postponed until several problems were investigated. First, they
argued that Leonard's research questions contained a fundamental flaw:

There are no valid scientific data challenging
macroevolution. Mr. Leonard has been misinforming his students if he
teaches them otherwise. His dissertation presents evidence that he
has succeeded in persuading high school students to reject this
fundamental principle of biology. As such, it involves deliberate
miseducation of these students, a practice that we regard as unethical.

Second, they asked if Leonard had received approval to experiment on
human subjects and if he had followed the prescribed protocol;
universities that fail to follow exacting procedures for human
experimentation may lose federal funding. Finally, they questioned
the composition of Leonard's dissertation committee, which lacked
expertise in both science education and evolutionary biology, the
subjects of his dissertation. Two members of the
committee—professors Glen R. Needham from the Department of
Entomology and Robert DiSilvestro from the Department of Human
Nutrition—had publicly supported the teaching of ID and denied
the validity of evolution.

At OSU, Ph.D. committees are required to have one member from
outside the candidate's college to ensure that correct procedure is
followed. The outsider on Leonard's committee was an assistant
professor in French and Italian who resigned and was replaced by
Joan Herbers, dean of the College of Biological Sciences.
Immediately after the replacement, Leonard's adviser, an expert in
teaching with computers who had "inherited" Leonard as the
former student of a departed faculty member, requested that the
defense be postponed.

These events prompted me to take ID seriously, and this movement
scares me. Now I feel like a jogger in the park at night who
realizes that she is far too isolated and that the shadows are far
too deep. At first I ignored that faint rustling behind me,
convincing myself it was just wind in the leaves. Louder noises made
me jump and turn around, but I saw nothing. Now I know that I and my
colleagues in science are being stalked with careful and deadly
deliberation. I fear my days are numbered unless I act soon and
effectively. If you are reading this, the chances are that you are
in the same position.

"Science" by Assumption

The Intelligent Design movement is a deliberate campaign to
undermine the teaching of science in America, and the evidence of
this intent is brazenly posted on ID Web sites. The movement's
founder and chief theorist, lawyer Phillip Johnson, and most of its
advocates are fellows of the Center for Science and Culture at a
conservative think tank called the Discovery Institute. The Center's
publicly stated aims include:

challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory; ...
developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design; ...
[and] encouraging schools to improve science education by teaching
students more fully about the theory of evolution, including the
theory's scientific weaknesses as well strengths [sic].

With these statements, the Center hides its true agenda behind a
false claim that it is promoting intellectual freedom when, in fact,
it is doing the opposite: stunting intellectual growth by
encouraging students to believe that a scientific theory is the same
as a philosophical assertion.

Intelligent Design is part of a calculated strategy that Johnson
calls the "Wedge," referring to the tool used to split a
solid object—in this case, the cornerstone of biological
science. According to a document that appeared on the Discovery
Institute's Web site in 1999, the goal of this plan is "nothing
less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural
legacies." The document also makes sweeping, inaccurate claims
such as "new developments in biology, physics and cognitive
science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have
re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of
nature." This statement is pure propaganda. (The document can
still be found on the Discovery Institute's Web site by searching
for "wedge," although it is now prefaced by 12 pages of
insistent justification.)

In the ID lexicon, "scientific materialism"—the idea
that the world around us can be explained without resorting to
supernatural forces—is the enemy. ID advocates favor instead
something they call "theistic realism," which
"assumes that the universe and all its creatures were brought
into existence for a purpose by God." The most revealing word
in this statement is assumes. Scientists rely not on
assumption but on evidence, and there is none for ID. Theistic
realism and ID are statements of religious faith, which does not
require evidence.

The Discovery Institute promotes Intelligent Design with a
sophisticated scheme that floods the public with academic-sounding
conferences, op-ed pieces (written by Fellows of the Institute who
do not always identify themselves as such), press releases, media
coverage, teacher-training seminars and materials, classes in the
"defense and proof" of Christianity, audiotapes, books,
and special briefings for members of Congress. The core of this
strategy is to keep saying that evolutionary theory is controversial
until—despite all the evidence to the contrary—people
start believing it. As Johnson cynically told an interviewer:

[Y]ou have to have people that talk a lot about the issue
and get it up front and take the punishment and take all the abuse,
and then you get people used to talking about it. It becomes an
issue they are used to hearing about, and you get a few more people
and a few more, and then eventually you've legitimated it as a
regular part of the academic discussion. And that's my goal: to
legitimate the argument over evolution. . . . We're bound to win.

A special five-year goal of the Center is publishing 100 scientific
or technical publications in support of ID, but here they have
failed. Philosopher Barbara Forrest of Southeast Louisiana
University, who has written extensively about the rise of the
movement, searched the peer-reviewed scientific literature
exhaustively and failed to find a single published paper in which
scientific data support Intelligent Design.

Battering Biology

The success of the ID movement to date is terrifying. In at least 40
states, ID is being considered as an addition to the required
science curriculum in public schools. This year a poll by the
National Science Teachers Association showed that one-third of
science teachers feel pressured to include ID, creationism or other
"nonscientific alternatives" in their science classrooms.
Some teachers are so intimidated by the threat of parental
complaints that they skip material dealing with evolution in their classes.

And on August 5, President George W. Bush endorsed the teaching of
intelligent design in science classes so that students learn
"both sides of the debate." This comment explicitly
parallels the talking points of the Discovery Institute, revealing
the reach of its persuasive campaign. In response, John H.
Marburger, III, director of the federal Office of Science and
Technology Policy, flatly stated, "Intelligent Design is not a
scientific concept."

The ID movement is more than an attack on biology because
evolutionary theory unifies the life and earth sciences with physics
and chemistry. If ID is accepted as a credible science, then the
most basic definition of a scientific theory and the fundamental
principles of the scientific method are not being taught. Johnson is
right: ID can be the wedge that splits science wide apart.

Science education is already in trouble in the United States,
particularly in comparison to other countries. On international
tests, U.S. students in the 4th and 8th grades score at or above the
average in scientific literacy and mathematics, but by the time
those students reach the end of high school, they have slipped to
19th out of 21 nations in science and math, according to the most
recent data for each age group. As the scientific preparedness of
American students falls, others fill the gap. At American
institutions in 2001-2002, 41 percent of those receiving doctoral or
professional degrees in biological science, engineering and physical
science combined were international students. Similarly, in the 2000
U.S. Census, 44.9 percent of the Ph.D.s in life science who worked
in industry were foreign born. Should Johnson's vision come to pass,
these numbers are likely to worsen, and our country will jeopardize
its position of leadership in many kinds of scientific research,
including medicine, agriculture and biotechnology.

ID is an insidious attempt by a religious caucus to impose its views
on the whole country. The avowed aim of ID advocates—to
undermine science and replace it with their personal religious
convictions—amounts to a form of prejudice that is both
poisonous and horribly frightening. Inevitably, young people will
suffer most. As Francisco Ayala wrote in "From the
President" (July-August 2004), science training will be a
fundamental necessity in the technological world of the future.

As scientists, we must stop ignoring the ID movement. It won't go
away. Each of us must learn to avoid jargon in order to communicate
better with the public. Every scientist should become a mentor;
share your experience of the wonder and beauty of science! Finally,
critically, we must expose Intelligent Design for what it really is:
religious prejudice masked as intellectual freedom.